My 750th post: The GUTOL (Grand Unified Theory Of Leftism)

 

There has been an interesting exchange of ideas recently on Ricochet, in this order:

  • I recently wrote a post in which I wondered how my leftist friends, who are intelligent and nice people, could vote for leftism, given its horrifying record of humanitarian catastrophes around the globe.
  • Henry responded with a brilliant post in which he suggested that leftism resonates with unhappy people: “My theory is that miserable people often can’t accept that they are miserable for internal reasons, so they externalize.”  He suggested that if the left was motivated by compassion for the poor, they would promote capitalism, so the poor could become rich.  But instead, they lash out at those they think are making them miserable – the wealthy, the producers, and even society itself.  Thus, he says, “Among the hard leftists is a hatred of what is good and beautiful is more of a motivation than compassion.”
  • In the comments of Henry’s post, Bryan tossed in this nugget of wisdom: “I think you touch on something very true here, in that miserable people cannot appreciate beauty or joy.  I see this more on an individual level in my practice.  People do not want to focus on the things they can control and instead spend their energy and attention on things they cannot control.  As an example, being a victim absolves one of responsibility, but also agency.  It is a miserable way to live.”
  • Then iWe suggested in a post (which I don’t think was intended to be part of this discussion) that he didn’t believe that people wanted to really live. He wrote that most people simply want to get through life with a minimum of difficulty, and are reluctant to live life with vigor and passion.

All of this got my propeller spinning a bit.  Let’s see if I can make sense of all this.

First, in defense of my simplistic question, I think this is a very important point.  In national elections, Democrats consistently win around half the popular vote.  That’s incredible.  The party of slavery, the party that promotes the same leftism that led to the deaths of 100 million people in the 1900s, the party that is led by inspiring, youthful, charismatic figures like Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer – that party wins about half the popular vote.  Regardless of who their candidate is at the time.

And most of the people that vote for Democrats are nice, caring, intelligent, pleasant people.  I find that astounding.

Henry’s response was brilliant, I thought.  Leftists claim to want a Utopia.  And maybe they do, on a certain level.  But their primary motivation is punishing whoever they blame for their problems.

Now, we all have problems.  But not all of us blame others for our problems.  P.J. O’Rourke wrote something like, “One problem with becoming a conservative was that I had more difficulty finding someone to blame for my problems.”

Taking responsibility for our problems is unpleasant.  The painful soul-searching needed to find and correct our own flaws is even more unpleasant.  It’s easier to just blame rich people.  Or Jews.  Or Christians.  Or heterosexual white males.  Or whoever.  Anybody but you.  You’re a helpless victim of forces beyond your control.  That makes you virtuous and that makes government your only hope.  Which gives you, and your government, more power than you deserve.  And more power than is safe.

Then, to Bryan’s point, I’ve also noticed over the course of my career that people much prefer to have problems that they can’t do anything about.

If someone develops diabetes, I’ll say, “You know, it might help if you don’t live on donuts, sweet tea, Little Debbies, and Fritos.”

The patient will immediately become defensive:  “It’s genetic!  My brother has diabetes too!”

Me:  “He’s my patient, too.  And you’re right, he also has diabetes.  Because he lives on donuts, sweet tea, Little Debbies, and Fritos.”

I’ve had patients transfer to another doctor after conversations like that.  But if I tell them that they have pancreatic cancer and they’re going to be dead in three months, they’re strangely reassured by the fact that it was just bad luck.  Not their fault.  Which makes it more tolerable, somehow.

Which brings up iWe’s (possibly unintentional) contribution to this discussion.  If people wanted to live their best life, they would want to take control of their lives.  But taking control would mean also taking responsibility for their lives.  Which is difficult.  So they voluntarily give up control over their lives, to be absolved of responsibility over their lives.

Either way, things will go wrong.  There will be disappointments in your life, no matter who’s responsible.

But if they are responsible for their own disappointments, that leads to unpleasant periods of self-doubt and agonizing efforts at self-improvement.  Very difficult stuff.  No fun whatsoever.

But if government is responsible for their disappointments, then it’s not their fault.  Less pressure on them, I suppose.

What they don’t understand is that lack of control over one’s life also leads to bitter resentments.  For example, I prescribe a medicine to a patient.  It’s expensive.  He asks if there are cheaper options.  I say yes, but they’re not quite as effective.  He says fine, give me the cheaper one, I’ll call you if it doesn’t work, and he’s pleased to have saved some money.  But if he were on a government health care plan that refused to pay for the good stuff and instead gave him the second-rate drug, he’d be furious.

Either way, he gets the second-rate drug.  But in one case he’s happy, and in the other case he’s furious.

Allowing others to control your life leads to anger and resentment.  But still, to iWe’s point, many still prefer to avoid taking responsibility for themselves.  So they become the miserable recruits for the Democrat party that Henry described in his post.

We tell children, from the age of 3 to their early 20s:  Ok, you’re a good person.  You don’t have to change – you’re as good as it gets, right now.  What a horrifying concept.  You’ve just extinguished any hope they have for the future.

By telling them that they are winners – and they can’t fail – you’re also telling them that they can’t succeed.  It’s hopeless.   No wonder they’re miserable.  No wonder they look for someone to blame for their misery.

Ok, so let me try to tie all this together:

Society is fairly prosperous and stable, so many people lead happy, wealthy lives.

But some do not.  And those people don’t wonder why they have failed while others have succeeded.  Instead, those people look for others to blame.  They blame family, religion, societal norms, and other restrictive systems which limit their behavior.

The successful people feel bad for the less successful, so they also criticize and attack the family, religion, and societal norms that led to their own success, out of sympathy for the less fortunate.

Once enough people turn against family, religion, and societal norms, then those things start to lose influence.  We start to raise children without those things.  After all, we don’t want to oppress them.

Those children, lacking the wisdom of the ages and lacking structure, understandably become miserable adults.

If you’re raised on nihilism, and you believe that your life has no greater purpose than the pursuit of immediate pleasures, and you believe it’s up to someone else to provide them for you, then nothing is ever good enough.  And you’re bound to be miserable.  Happiness becomes impossible.

Those miserable adults are naturally hesitant to believe that their misery is their own fault (and you could argue that it’s not).  So they blame those who are more fortunate.  Miserable people hate happy people.

The miserable people feel vindicated and virtuous.  They literally can do no wrong – crimes are not criminal if they’re done for the greater good.  So their attacks on family, religion, and societal norms become progressively more vicious.

The successful become evil, the less successful become good.  Kids start smoking pot and playing video games.  Why would they work their tails off simply to become successful, and thus, evil?  So we get progressively more unsuccessful, miserable people who want government control, and progressively less successful, happy people who want personal independence.

And eventually we reach a critical mass of miserable people.  So government power becomes overwhelming.  For everyone.

Now family, religion, and societal norms go from supporting a stable society to having no supporters whatsoever.  They shrivel and die, and nobody cares.  Government will take care of us.  That’s more fair.

The culture that supported that previously stable & prosperous society collapses completely, and everyone wonders why.  It must be the Republicans’ fault…

Hmmm…

I don’t know.  This made more sense in my head than it does now, after I tried to write it out.  I still find it astounding that Democrats win half the national vote every time.  And I’m amazed that my nice, intelligent, compassionate friends vote for them.

I just don’t get it.  I guess because my brain just doesn’t work like that.

But maybe this is at least a partial explanation.  Fear of failure leads to willing forfeiture of one’s autonomy, which leads to resentment and misery, which leads to the hatred of happiness and beauty and opportunity, which leads to attacks on the independence of others, which leads to more government power, which leads to misery, and around and around we go.

I guess.

I don’t know.

What do you think?


NOTE:  I very much appreciate the contributions of @henrycastaigne, @bryangstephens, and @iwe to this essay.  If I misrepresented your views in any way, please let me know and I’ll make corrections.  Thanks.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 305 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    All that being said, it shouldn’t be so hard for me to understand why nice, normal, intelligent people who read a lot, including history and other hard subjects, vote for the Democrats. I was one of them, for most of my adult life.

    And yet it is hard.

    My husband says that many of our friends and acquaintances are re-thinking their allegiance to the left in these crazy times. “You were on the leading edge of it,” he says. “And other people are just catching up.” I hope that’s true. 

    An old professor of mine just told me that, back at my beloved seminary, one I valued (even at the time) for its intellectual, political and theological diversity, the Dean went out of her way to silence conservatives whenever she could. I’d had no idea. I wish I had. I would’ve said something to the effect of “you  know, the reason I like it here is because everyone doesn’t think, speak, believe exactly the same way.”

    This was also one reason I loved Georgetown u.—it was counted as a relatively conservative campus in those days, and being one of the leftists was fun. Lots of great arguments and debates, and op-eds in the student newspaper that caused stirs and kerfuffles. I don’t recall any of my lefty friends bemoaning that ideological diversity, or wishing they’d gone to Oberlin or Berkeley instead, places where everyone wanted to save the whales. 

    There was a time, in other words, when one could be a Democrat and yet be comfortable with and energized by ideological differences.  

    • #61
  2. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    I don’t think Zafar is suggesting that Democrats (or leftists) are able to (or even interested in) make life more fair.  He’s simply pointing out that this is the Democrat marketing strategy.

    No, I do think that most Leftists want to do that.  And I suspect that this motivates your pleasant friends who vote Democrat. (How Leftist the Democrats really are is another issue.)

    I support it in moderation.  Ideological consistency isn’t necessarily a good thing when it comes to running societies.

    • #62
  3. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    kedavis (View Comment):

    From what I can see, Zafar may understand the actual evils of leftism, but supports them anyway for his own selfish purposes because he sees the left as being more favorable towards homosexuality.

    Which is probably another mistake based on falling for their marketing, but I doubt he could ever see it.  Even if he can see how others are deceived by the left’s marketing, he has his own blind spot that likely cannot be corrected.

    Would you say that you have a blind spot for the Right’s inconsistencies or flaws because the Right panders to religion?

    • #63
  4. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    Somewhat in defense of Zafar, let me just say that being supported (or being rejected) by a group does tend to color the view one takes of them.

    It does, but it also gives one an indication of what the results would be if that group had power in the world.  If they have had power in the past that’s also a good indicator of what they’d do in the future if they could – they have established form, if you will.

    It seems to me that everybody – Conservatives and Liberals and Progressives – are very selective in the history they remember and the history they would prefer nobody spoke about any more.

    Zafar is pretty tactful, doesn’t go in for melodrama and generally stands for live-and-let-live tolerance. 

    Clearly I have to up my game here.

    He seems genuinely interested in human beings-qua-human beings, rather than categories and types, and in this sense, sadly, he also seems “conservative” to me!

    You take that back! 

    Thank you, I think.

    • #64
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    From what I can see, Zafar may understand the actual evils of leftism, but supports them anyway for his own selfish purposes because he sees the left as being more favorable towards homosexuality.

    Which is probably another mistake based on falling for their marketing, but I doubt he could ever see it. Even if he can see how others are deceived by the left’s marketing, he has his own blind spot that likely cannot be corrected.

    Would you say that you have a blind spot for the Right’s inconsistencies or flaws because the Right panders to religion?

    Since I’m not actually religious, no.

    But a lot of people don’t seem to understand that civilization as we know it likely can’t withstand a lot of what they want, for their own personal reasons.  Or they just don’t care.  But that’s on them, not on the people who think civilization needs to continue even if some people aren’t happy with it.

    • #65
  6. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    GrannyDude (View Comment):
    My husband says that many of our friends and acquaintances are re-thinking their allegiance to the left in these crazy times. “You were on the leading edge of it,” he says. “And other people are just catching up.” I hope that’s true. 

    Would you say that the Liberal consensus has calcified, in no small part because it’s become the establishment (tipping point), and that thoughtful people are deserting it?  I find progressive opinion holds performative Leftists like AOC in contempt (what does she achieve? nothing) – which is similar to how more Right Wing opinion sees RINOs.  And both these, so far fringe, groups actually produce a lot of interesting, thought provoking opinions.

    • #66
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    kedavis (View Comment):
    But a lot of people don’t seem to understand that civilization as we know it likely can’t withstand a lot of what they want, for their own personal reasons.  Or they just don’t care.  But that’s on them, not on the people who think civilization needs to continue even if some people aren’t happy with it.

    I’m sure it’s been argued before – for example when it came to slavery, or discrimination against women, or segregation – but somehow not very often by slaves, or women, or black people.  You might be right that stable social structures can be built  on disadvantaging certain groups in society, but when these groups reach critical mass that disadvantage becomes a cause of social instability.  I think it’s better to deal with the disadvantage, even if that isn’t always comfortable.  jmho.

    • #67
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    But a lot of people don’t seem to understand that civilization as we know it likely can’t withstand a lot of what they want, for their own personal reasons. Or they just don’t care. But that’s on them, not on the people who think civilization needs to continue even if some people aren’t happy with it.

    I’m sure it’s been argued before – for example when it came to slavery, or discrimination against women, or segregation – but somehow not very often by slaves, or women, or black people. You might be right that stable social structures can be built on disadvantaging certain groups in society, but when these groups reach critical mass that disadvantage becomes a cause of social instability. I think it’s better to deal with the disadvantage, even if that isn’t always comfortable. jmho.

    It’s not about deliberately disadvantaging certain individuals or groups, but that ADVANTAGING them – in some cases, I would say, artificially – can have far-reaching, destructive consequences.

    For a less-related example, there’s good evidence and a good argument that women as a group tend to vote left/socialist/etc, to the detriment of society.  And in fact there are women on Ricochet who would tell you that women shouldn’t vote, including themselves, because they recognize that.

    And my question for that situation is, even if you want to just take it as a hypothetical thought experiment, is it worth the eventual decline and fall of western civilization, for women to feel good about themselves – “empowered” etc – for 100 years or so?

    If your answer is yes, then you should think some more.

    Especially considering how women would likely be treated after that fall, by radical muslims, chinese communists, etc.

    In that situation, not being allowed to vote would be the least of their worries.

    • #68
  9. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    I don’t think Zafar is suggesting that Democrats (or leftists) are able to (or even interested in) make life more fair. He’s simply pointing out that this is the Democrat marketing strategy.

    No, I do think that most Leftists want to do that. And I suspect that this motivates your pleasant friends who vote Democrat. (How Leftist the Democrats really are is another issue.)

    I support it in moderation. Ideological consistency isn’t necessarily a good thing when it comes to running societies.

    Ah.

    My apologies.  I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

    Thank you for the clarification. 

    • #69
  10. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    kedavis (View Comment):

    It’s not about deliberately disadvantaging certain individuals or groups, but that ADVANTAGING them – in some cases, I would say, artificially – can have far-reaching, destructive consequences.

    I’m not seeing how this relates to slavery and abolition, but okay.

    For a less-related example, there’s good evidence and a good argument that women as a group tend to vote left/socialist/etc, to the detriment of society.  And in fact there are women on Ricochet who would tell you that women shouldn’t vote, including themselves, because they recognize that.

    And my question for that situation is, even if you want to just take it as a hypothetical thought experiment, is it worth the eventual decline and fall of western civilization, for women to feel good about themselves – “empowered” etc – for 100 years or so?

    I don’t agree with your assumptions.  Specifically, I don’t believe that voting for some Left Wing issues will destroy Civilisation as we know it.  Just like I don’t believe that voting for some Right Wing issues will destroy Civilisation. 

    I basically don’t believe that enfranchising women has undermined Civilisation, I’d be interested in why you believe that beyond the Left/Right voting thing.

    I have seen at least one woman here on Ricochet who agrees with you, but I’d be curious if there were many.

    If your answer is yes, then you should think some more.

    Especially considering how women would likely be treated after that fall, by radical muslims, chinese communists, etc.

    In that situation, not being allowed to vote would be the least of their worries.

    Give up the franchise or the Taliban will git  you?  I think baloney.

    • #70
  11. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    I don’t think Zafar is suggesting that Democrats (or leftists) are able to (or even interested in) make life more fair. He’s simply pointing out that this is the Democrat marketing strategy.

    No, I do think that most Leftists want to do that. And I suspect that this motivates your pleasant friends who vote Democrat. (How Leftist the Democrats really are is another issue.)

    I support it in moderation. Ideological consistency isn’t necessarily a good thing when it comes to running societies.

    Ah.

    My apologies. I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

    Thank you for the clarification.

    My pleasure.  And I’m not making any claims about how successful/unsuccessful the Left has been in this endeavour.

    • #71
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    It’s not about deliberately disadvantaging certain individuals or groups, but that ADVANTAGING them – in some cases, I would say, artificially – can have far-reaching, destructive consequences.

    I’m not seeing how this relates to slavery and abolition, but okay.

    For a less-related example, there’s good evidence and a good argument that women as a group tend to vote left/socialist/etc, to the detriment of society. And in fact there are women on Ricochet who would tell you that women shouldn’t vote, including themselves, because they recognize that.

    And my question for that situation is, even if you want to just take it as a hypothetical thought experiment, is it worth the eventual decline and fall of western civilization, for women to feel good about themselves – “empowered” etc – for 100 years or so?

    I don’t agree with your assumptions. Specifically, I don’t believe that voting for some Left Wing issues will destroy Civilisation as we know it. Just like I don’t believe that voting for some Right Wing issues will destroy Civilisation.

    I basically don’t believe that enfranchising women has undermined Civilisation, I’d be interested in why you believe that beyond the Left/Right voting thing.

    I have seen at least one woman here on Ricochet who agrees with you, but I’d be curious if there were many.

    If your answer is yes, then you should think some more.

    Especially considering how women would likely be treated after that fall, by radical muslims, chinese communists, etc.

    In that situation, not being allowed to vote would be the least of their worries.

    Give up the franchise or the Taliban will git you? I think baloney.

    Doesn’t have to be the Taliban, but world history shows that women usually don’t do very well.

    • #72
  13. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Doesn’t have to be the Taliban, but world history shows that women usually don’t do very well.

    With the franchise? I don’t see it :-(

    • #73
  14. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Doesn’t have to be the Taliban, but world history shows that women usually don’t do very well.

    With the franchise? I don’t see it :-(

    It seems no different than many other things, they decline slowly, and then seemingly collapse all at once.

    • #74
  15. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    GrannyDude (View Comment):
    many people I know, “conservatism” is conflated with Christian conservatism which is then conflated with “of the kind that is or wants to be cruel to my gay brother.”

    Which is utter BS crap they believe.

    No excuses.

    The Catholics on Ricochet seem like those kinda people form what I read. All Catholics though. All the other Christians seem nice.

    • #75
  16. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Doesn’t have to be the Taliban, but world history shows that women usually don’t do very well.

    With the franchise? I don’t see it :-(

    It seems no different than many other things, they decline slowly, and then seemingly collapse all at once.

    Women tend to vote for big government which seems to weaken society and make us more susceptible to foreign enemies. I am OK with women getting the franchise if we establish I.Q. tests or basic knowledge tests with regard to economics that make emphasize wealth creation and scarcity. 

    • #76
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Doesn’t have to be the Taliban, but world history shows that women usually don’t do very well.

    With the franchise? I don’t see it :-(

    It seems no different than many other things, they decline slowly, and then seemingly collapse all at once.

    Women tend to vote for big government which seems to weaken society and make us more susceptible to foreign enemies. I am OK with women getting the franchise if we establish I.Q. tests or basic knowledge tests with regard to economics that make emphasize wealth creation and scarcity.

    The problem there is, who gets to create the tests?  Especially THESE days. 

    • #77
  18. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Zafar (View Comment):

    GrannyDude (View Comment):
    My husband says that many of our friends and acquaintances are re-thinking their allegiance to the left in these crazy times. “You were on the leading edge of it,” he says. “And other people are just catching up.” I hope that’s true.

    Would you say that the Liberal consensus has calcified, in no small part because it’s become the establishment (tipping point), and that thoughtful people are deserting it? I find progressive opinion holds performative Leftists like AOC in contempt (what does she achieve? nothing) – which is similar to how more Right Wing opinion sees RINOs. And both these, so far fringe, groups actually produce a lot of interesting, thought provoking opinions.

    Yes—I would absolutely say that the liberal consensus has become the establishment, and  has both calcified and over-reached. 

    I wonder, too, if it happened that I came of age (politically, at least) at a moment when the left and the right were balanced, with Clinton being a genuine (as opposed to Bidenesque Faux) centrist. It was still possible to be a pro-life Democrat, which meant it was possible to be a Democrat who was ambivalently pro-choice (how I described myself, then) and possible to be a Democrat in favor of welfare reform, and against affirmative action (and therefore ambivalent or questioning about affirmative action) etc. etc.

    I do believe, too, that groups tend to be more inclusive and welcoming when, in effect, they have to be. At the moment (a historical moment, so we’re talking decades of actual time) the right is the underdog, and underdogs naturally are less nit-picky about ideological conformity. It is when a group achieves power that it starts to focus on purging the insufficiently ideologically conformist (probably a way to winnow out the competition for the top jobs) and purifying The Movement. 

    Maybe. On the other hand, the classical liberalism that undergirds American conservatism is probably more resistant to the totalizing impulse than the marxism that (let’s face it) has dominated  American leftism for at least a half century if not longer.   If you’re in favor of small, limited government, that means there are going to be limits not just on what you can actually do, but on what you can imagine yourself (or your team) doing.

     

    • #78
  19. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Also: In retrospect, my experience of conservatism has been that even when I counted myself a full-on liberal (and a left-leaning one) I was never mistreated by conservatives.  Never shunned, never “unfriended” (or the 1990s equivalent thereof) never called names or told I couldn’t speak. 

    All of those things have been done to me by liberals. 

    Which makes me answer the question of why I am no longer a liberal with “because liberals are friggin’ mean.” (Not you. But far, far too many.)

    • #79
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    Also: In retrospect, my experience of conservatism has been that even when I counted myself a full-on liberal (and a left-leaning one) I was never mistreated by conservatives. Never shunned, never “unfriended” (or the 1990s equivalent thereof) never called names or told I couldn’t speak.

    All of those things have been done to me by liberals.

    Which makes me answer the question of why I am no longer a liberal with “because liberals are friggin’ mean.” (Not you. But far, far too many.)

    Dennis Miller has made similar comments.

    • #80
  21. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    I am OK with women getting the franchise if we establish I.Q. tests or basic knowledge tests with regard to economics that make emphasize wealth creation and scarcity. 

    Um…they already have the franchise, so it would be a matter of disenfranchising them, or making that franchise conditional (for women, and perhaps for everybody?).

    Then you get into the issue of taxation without representation.  How many people would be willing to give up the franchise if it meant they didn’t have to pay any taxes?!

    • #81
  22. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    I don’t know how we wandered into the subject of women’s suffrage — but, knowing Castaigne, he probably had something to do with it. [Next up: Should sex robots be allowed to vote?]

    I’ll just say that it is possible to simultaneously say: first, that I would prefer the outcomes if no women chose to vote, since I think women tend, as a net demographic, to vote in a manner that is in opposition to  my own; and, secondly, that I absolutely think women should retain the right to vote with exactly the same restrictions to which everyone else should be held (e.g., citizenship, a photographic ID, and proper voter registration).

    So I’ll say that.

    • #82
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    I am OK with women getting the franchise if we establish I.Q. tests or basic knowledge tests with regard to economics that make emphasize wealth creation and scarcity.

    Um…they already have the franchise, so it would be a matter of disenfranchising them, or making that franchise conditional (for women, and perhaps for everybody?).

    Then you get into the issue of taxation without representation. How many people would be willing to give up the franchise if it meant they didn’t have to pay any taxes?!

    Well, just about 50% of people don’t pay federal income tax NOW.

    • #83
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I don’t know how we wandered into the subject of women’s suffrage — but, knowing Castaigne, he probably had something to do with it. [Next up: Should sex robots be allowed to vote?]

    I’ll just say that it is possible to simultaneously say: first, that I would prefer the outcomes if no women chose to vote, since I think women tend, as a net demographic, to vote in a manner that is in opposition to my own; and, secondly, that I absolutely think women should retain the right to vote with exactly the same restrictions to which everyone else should be held (e.g., citizenship, a photographic ID, and proper voter registration).

    So I’ll say that.

    So, that’s one vote for the decline and fall of Western Civilization as long as women get to feel good about themselves on the way down.

    And let’s not worry about the suffering of people – especially women – that comes later.

    • #84
  25. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    Also: In retrospect, my experience of conservatism has been that even when I counted myself a full-on liberal (and a left-leaning one) I was never mistreated by conservatives. Never shunned, never “unfriended” (or the 1990s equivalent thereof) never called names or told I couldn’t speak.

    All of those things have been done to me by liberals.

    That doesn’t seem very liberal of them, does it?

    But also – perhaps there really was more of a consensus at that time?  In that you agreed about more than you disagreed.  Today the Overton Window has really broadened.  Can you imagine BDS in the 1990s? I can’t. And I don’t think there was much canvassing for Medicare for all either.  Nobody was questioning  all those Confederate statues, who put them up and why.  Or if they were  they didn’t really have much of a public voice.

    Which makes me answer the question of why I am no longer a liberal with “because liberals are friggin’ mean.” (Not you. But far, far too many.)

    Everybody can be, given the right circumstances.

    Also – I am not really a liberal, I’m more progressive, but perhaps this is the vanity of small differences?

    • #85
  26. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Today the Overton Window has really broadened.  Can you imagine BDS in the 1990s? I can’t. And I don’t think there was much canvassing for Medicare for all either.  Nobody was questioning  all those Confederate statues, who put them up and why. 

    That’s the Overton window going left. Not opening up. 

    • #86
  27. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Zafar (View Comment):
    How many people would be willing to give up the franchise if it meant they didn’t have to pay any taxes?!

    Enough for economic flourishing I hope. I think it would be a good idea to charge people to vote. 

    • #87
  28. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Today the Overton Window has really broadened. Can you imagine BDS in the 1990s? I can’t. And I don’t think there was much canvassing for Medicare for all either. Nobody was questioning all those Confederate statues, who put them up and why.

    That’s the Overton window going left. Not opening up.

    The Overton Window may have been artificially skewed to the Right after WWII by J Edgar.  It was bound to recover, though it took a long time to do so.

    Re: your earlier comment about requiring a test before people could vote.  That would revolutionise politics in most countries – certainly politicians would need to raise their game.

    • #88
  29. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
     Should sex robots be allowed to vote?

    If robots gain consciousness and they choose to work as prostitutes they should be referred to as Silicon sex workers rather than sex robots. I know in this day and age that sounds politically correct but we need to have some manners don’t we?

    • #89
  30. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Should sex robots be allowed to vote?

    If robots gain consciousness and they choose to work as prostitutes they should be referred to as Silicon sex workers rather than sex robots. I know in this day and age that sounds politically correct but we need to have some manners don’t we?

    As a man who programs robots, I will remain steadfastly prejudiced against any rights for robots, ever.

    In fact, I won’t even object to judging them by the color of their cowling.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.